First, one of the most obvious problems of the 21st century are failing or failed states. From Latin America to south Asia, the globe is plagued with states that need development assistance. Such states were problematic in earlier periods, but in a globalised world their failure has ramifications around the world. Such situations generally fester without attention until one day the international community wakes up to a major problem that they "never saw coming". By that point, however, military force is usually required and the complexity of the operations becomes incredibly more difficult. It would be much better if we could pre-empt such incidents than to react to them.

Our current inability to help failing states lies in large part with capacity – or the lack thereof. The UK, as well as key British allies, all have critical shortages of individuals that understand countries in crisis and who are capable of contributing to their development. We also have a problem with funds – they are limited and in an increasingly difficult economic climate this problem is even more critical. Current European efforts are disparate, thereby wasting even more funds. Around the world each EU member conducts development programmes with little attention paid to what other EU countries are doing. It would be an amazing benefit to both donor and recipient nations if Europe could establish a co-ordinated programme to address this gap.

Perhaps most importantly, the peace corps is a volunteer organisation. Right now, although few like to admit it, a development-security complex plagues the UK, Europe, Canada and the US. We "donate" or allocate vast sums of money to development projects, and hire international advisors who are paid huge salaries to go in to fix the problem. Around 90% of the money donated thus ends up in western pockets, supporting western economies rather than the economy of say Afghanistan or Sierra Leone.

A volunteer service would help to eliminate this problem. Peace corps volunteers in the US are not paid above their maintenance in-country. They receive a stipend that enables them to live at the same standard as the people that they serve – meaning that they understand the local situation and live in local communities. Living among the people will give them a stronger appreciation of development challenges, it will also help to develop capacity and reduce corruption. Right now Europe looks the other way as millions of euros from development programmes end up in the Swiss bank accounts of corrupt African politicians or south Asian warlords. It is hard for a donor government to embezzle 22-year-old Europeans working in a hospital or school. A western firm cannot subcontract a volunteer for millions of dollars in profits.

Duplication is one of the key problems with efforts made via European security and defence policy (ESDP). Some worry that ESDP duplicates Nato capabilities. Others argue that creating a European foreign service will duplicate national services. Much of this worry is well-founded, so it is nice to hear a fresh idea on this issue.

Last, but not least, a European peace corps might be a good way to help and supplement, rather than supplant. Currently, we go in to help and we end up trampling indigenous efforts and stifling the emergence of indigenous capacity. In our attempts to avoid local "corruption", we end up pouring millions into our own corrupt and inefficient system. We need to structure our engagement as a two-way road. We need to stop thinking that we know better. As TE Lawrence said, it is better that the locals do it imperfectly than we do it perfectly. Since we often do not do it perfectly, all the better to just go and help them with our hands and feet, instead of dollars, guns and jets.